There are two plausible scenarios for the Republican presidential race. One is that Donald Trump will be the nominee. The other is that Trump will have a plurality but not a majority of the delegates when the GOP goes into its convention in Cleveland. This sort of "brokered convention" would be a dream for many political enthusiasts, but there are some tricky problems that I want to discuss.

The last national convention that went to a second ballot for its presidential candidate was in 1952. (In 1976, Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan went into the convention separated by a small number of delegates, but Ford won the first ballot.) This means that there is nobody alive with experience at attending or managing a convention with multiple ballots. This is bound to lead to confusion.

Now you might respond to the first point by saying "Surely there are rules in place to deal with a situation in which no candidate receives a majority on the first ballot." Yes there are. But the rules in place are not necessarily the rules that will govern the convention. The Convention can adopt its own rules. This is why in the days of yore, the election of the Convention Chair was crucial because that person made all of the initial rulings (subject to being overruled by a floor vote). Likewise, there can be challenges to delegate credentials on the floor. When you see a news report that says Cruz won 10 delegates in a state, that is only a provisional figure. Maybe the Convention will decide that he won 8. This is why control of the credentials committee was also traditionally vital--go back and read how President Taft excluded lots of Teddy Roosevelt's delegates in 1912 to block his nomination.

All of this raises a deeper question. What if an unhappy candidate decides to sue the RNC over something that happened at the convention? The contested conventions of old occurred in an era when everybody accepted the norm that the Convention's decisions were final. I think that is still the correct rule, but you can see how a candidate might plausibly seek a judicial remedy if, say, the rules of the Convention were not followed, changed on the fly, or were blatantly unfair. Where would that sort of litigation leave the fall campaign?

If only in the view of people who never got over failing to steal the 2000 election.

I can't see that sort of litigation happening, unless some really bogus events took place, like pledged delegates being permited to defect on the first ballot. And I don't see the RNC being stupid enough to try something that likely to blow up in their faces; They're already faced with a party base that hates their guts, that would give them a base determined to burn the party down no matter the cost.

They want to be the big fish in a small pond, not to drive people to drain the pond and salt the earth it stood on.

No, at this point it looks to me like they're going to make their peace with Trump getting the nomination, if it comes to it.

I am not sure about your point regarding how many delegates a candidate wins in a particular state. As I understand it, Republicans in Virginia will meet in convention in each congressional district to select the delegates who will go to the convention. These delegates will be "bound" (whatever that means) to vote in accordance with the primary vote on the first ballot. But the selection of the delegates themselves is apparently independent of how the primary vote went. So the fact that the delegate is bound to vote for Trump doesn't mean that the delegate is actually someone who is pro-Trump. Thus, i don't quite see how the credentials committee would change the outcome by seating one delegate over another, if that is what you were suggesting.

Let's say that Trump comes up a little short of 51% of the delegates. If the credentials committee goes out of their way to pick delegates who oppose Trump, his capacity to bargain for a second round win, say by promising Cruz his VP slot, declines a lot. He not only has to make up the initial shortfall, but compensate for the defections.

So, no, it doesn't matter if the outcome is a Trump victory in the first round voting, especially if there's enough excess votes that it can't be forced into a second round by somebody failing to show.

Brett- I guess. But my point was that the fact that Cruz wins 10 delegates from a state doesn't mean that he is entitled to 10 delegates that are pro-Cruz, regardless of what the credentials committee might do. Moreover, at least in Virginia, the delegates seem to be running as individuals and not saying that they will vote for any particular person on the second ballot. So the number of pro-Cruz delegates appears to be independent of the number of votes Cruz is entitled to get on the first ballot (which i think is zero from Virginia) and it might not be known who a particular delegate intends to vote for anyway.

Sure. But, at this point, I'll be moderately surprised if it's not Trump on the first round of voting, meaning he gets the nomination unless there's some serious dirty dealing. And I can't see the party establishment pulling enough dirty dealing to give the nomination to Rubio, the only candidate they'd be inclined to try to steal the nomination for. He's a distant, distant third place at this point. It's a race between Trump and Cruz.

I doubt they really even have rules. The "rules" have been written for the phony show conventions we now have. Using them to operate a real contested nominating convention would be like attempting conduct an actual fair trial under the rules of procedure written for the Stalin show trials or the Star Chamber, or maybe trying a Supreme Court case before the American Idol judges.

The entire infrastructure of each party is engineered to avoid a contested convention. That is seen as the lesson of 1968.

And the conventions are desigmed to be television shows with careful choreography. How would the first two days even work if no nominee had been selected yet? Who would speak and what would they say?

If Trump gets the nomination, the "rules" at least of how things work after the convention are going to change. The impossible over the years at times becomes possible when certain things arise. Might occur during. One sees that in life sometimes. But, it's hypothetical to me at this point.

1) One ‪#‎nevertrump‬ candidate emerges and the remainder suspend their campaigns, allowing the survivor to gain a majority of the delegates. This would require the remaining #nevertrump candidates to leave after Florida/Ohio or earlier and most of the 65% of the current non-Trump vote to coalesce around the survivor. The survivor can then pile up the winner take all delegates at the state and congressional district levels.

2) One #nevertrump candidate emerges and the remainder suspend their campaigns later, allowing the survivor to gain a plurality or near plurality of the delegates. This would resemble 1976.

3) Two to four #nevertrump candidates stay in the race and divide up the 65% of the non-Trump majority vote. Trump goes to the convention with a clear plurality, but no majority of delegates. Trump is not on pace to gain a majority of delegates and only earned a bare plurality of delegates on Super Tuesday, edging out Cruz. Trump has the highest negatives by far of any GOP candidate.

The electoral math suggests that the only viable #nevertrump unity candidate is Ted Cruz:

The GOP establishment can see this math as well. Sen. Lindsay Graham (of all people) took to national television yesterday to say that the GOP establishment may have to back Cruz to stop Trump.

Scenario One is settles the nomination before the convention. Scenarios Two and Three resolve the nomination at a contested convention.

The important thing to remember about a contested convention is that delegates pledged to #nevertrump candidates (and many pledged to Trump himself) are party members rather than Trump activists and have no love for "the Donald." Once they are released either by their candidates or party rules, they are likely to move to one of the #nevertrump candidates and give that survivor the nomination.

If Trump goes into the convention with a plurality of delegates (or maybe with any number of delegates) and loses the nomination, the Donald could try to file a suit, but a court will almost certainly treat this as the ultimate political question.

The real danger is that Trump runs as an independent and splits the GOP vote. This could be 1992 all over again with the Donald playing Perot and another Clinton winning by a plurality well short of a majority. Indeed, this could be the highly disaproved of Hillary's best and maybe only chance of winning a general election.

1) One ‪#‎nevertrump‬ candidate emerges and the remainder suspend their campaigns, allowing the survivor to gain a majority of the delegates. This would require the remaining #nevertrump candidates to leave after Florida/Ohio or earlier and most of the 65% of the current non-Trump vote to coalesce around the survivor. The survivor can then pile up the winner take all delegates at the state and congressional district levels.

2) One #nevertrump candidate emerges and the remainder suspend their campaigns later, allowing the survivor to gain a plurality or near plurality of the delegates. This would resemble 1976.

3) Two to four #nevertrump candidates stay in the race and divide up the 65% of the non-Trump majority vote. Trump goes to the convention with a clear plurality, but no majority of delegates. Trump is not on pace to gain a majority of delegates and only earned a bare plurality of delegates on Super Tuesday, edging out Cruz. Trump has the highest negatives by far of any GOP candidate.

I am citing Democrat media polling which has been routinely underestimating Cruz (and Rubio) support so far in the primaries.

The head-to-head horserace polling of registered voters looks very much like the polling at this point before the 2014 Senate election - substantial GOP enthusiasm advantage, the Democrat candidate can't reach a majority of the vote and is tied or behind the polled Republican alternative, and there is a large group of "undecided" who massively disapprove of the Democrat.

The only viable GOP candidate who Clinton leads in this registered voter polling is Trump.

Sen. Harry Reid just praised Cruz as better than Rubio. I thought he was trolling myself, but you know, take it as you wish.

"A source involved in a case but not authorized to talk to the media about Cruz’s defense efforts said there was “a network” of attorneys from The Federalist Society, a conservative group of lawyers founded by the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who are volunteering to defend Cruz."

"If you killed Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate, and the trial was in the Senate, nobody would convict you,"

That quote is from a fellow GOP senator. Good luck with that...

The good news for Cruz is that the GOP establishment is not deciding this election.

BTW, the senator making that crack was Lindsay Graham, who as I noted above, was on CBS yesterday saying that the GOP establishment may have to turn to Cruz to stop Trump. Graham did not say whether this would before or after they killed Cruz on the Senate floor. ;^)

Remember when Bart was telling us about how great Ted Cruz was poised to do? That banked on firewall on Super Tuesday didn't pan out well, did it? Looks like another These Poll numbers are great for John McCain and Romney is going to win tomorrow moment!

"the most ahistoric election I have ever seen."

You see, it's not Bart that was wrong, it was reality.

I remember the months leading up to the election of 2012 Bart would pontificate about how all the polling which he read so expertly pointed to depressed Hispanic and black turnout. I told him several times 'you really believe that in the re-election campaign of the first minority candidate that is going to happen? Historically minority turn out is always higher for Presidential elections, and this is the mother of all elections for minorities.' Common sense you'd think, but Bart let his ideology trump his common sense. A pattern that is likely to keep repeating itself...

Remember who told you a year out that the GOP would take the House in 2010 and the Senate in 2014.

# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 11:39 AM

Baghdad, acknowledging the polls is easy to do when it looks like your side is going to win. Your record of acknowledging the polls when your side isn't winning is rather dismal, and that very much includes 2008. These poll numbers are GREAT news for John McCain!!!

Wise words: "Prediction is hard, especially the future." But, I think I can confidently predict at this point we're not going to see a Sanders/Rubio fight in the general election. Sanders doesn't show much sign of catching fire, so it's going to take Hillary being indicted to get him the nomination. (That was always his best chance of victory.) And I don't think the DoJ is uncorrupted enough at this late date for that to happen; Too many bodies buried, and Hillary knows where.

The Republican establishment would love to foist Rubio on the base, but that's looking like a bridge too far, too. It's either Trump or Cruz at this point, and it's Trump's to lose.

So, that's my expectation at this point: Hillary vs Trump, with an outside chance of Hillary vs Cruz or Bernie vs Trump. The enthusiasm gap definately favors the GOP this time around, but you can never underestimate the GOP's capacity to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. They're past masters at that manuver.

I did not predict any outcome for Ted Cruz and I am still not. I noted that Cruz had the best ground game in the race and he still does. Currently, Cruz is a close second in delegates to Trump and, for the reasons I noted above, would be the logical unity candidate for the majority of the GOP who oppose Trump.

The 2012 presidential demographics do not resemble the electorate of any national race before or since. Obama's reelection during an economic depression with falling labor participation rates and expanding poverty while losing in a majority of congressional districts is unprecedented. Ahistoric, even.

bb:

If predicting the 2010 and 2014 election outcomes a year out was so easy, why did you disagree while quoting my comment concerning a McCain poll all the way through the election days. ;^)

If predicting the 2010 and 2014 election outcomes a year out was so easy, why did you disagree while quoting my comment concerning a McCain poll all the way through the election days. ;^)# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 3:56 PM

Your McCain post wasn't a year out. It was the morning of an election that everyone (except you) knew he was about to lose. Quoting polls a year out is completely pointless. A lot can happen in a year. Basically, I was mocking you for being a complete fucking hack.

I would expect an "enthusiasm gap" when the choices for Democrats is Hillary Clinton (expected nominee) and Sanders (protest candidate especially with weak support among voters that dominated many Super Tuesday races).

Not only was 2008 a race between two people who had a more equal shot, the Dems were passionate to replace an opponent in the White House. Lots of Dems are GLAD about Obama, liking gay rights, health care, gender equality etc.

Republican voters are the ones who want to kick the incumbent out and have Trump and various anti-Trump options. I'd reckon Democrats and other non-Republicans would be more enthusiastic in November if they had to worry about two guys even members of their own party despise. I wonder the "enthusiasm" of many a Republican voter if they had Trump as their candidate, putting aside that is only a fraction of the electorate (split between two parties plus some middle).

Bartbuster, there's only one Minnesota, too. The only state Rubio has won so far, and he can't win it a second time. At this point, it doesn't even look like Rubio is going to win his home state of Florida.

You might not like the fact that Cruz won Texas, but he did, and those delegates are his now, 10% of the delegates needed to secure the nomination.

I will freely admit that the only way Cruz wins the nomination is if Rubio, and ideally Kasich, too, drop out fairly soon. That's why I think Trump will probably win it. Rubio, by contrast, has no hope of winning the nomination even if Cruz inexplicably dropped out. Cruz dropping out would cement it for Trump.

So, as I said, probably Trump, with an outside chance of Cruz. And Rubio might as well give up today.

When he is not winning caucuses and primaries, Cruz is generally coming in second.

If (or more likely when) Rubio and Kasich drop out, Cruz should have a fairly reliable majority, especially in closed primaries limited to GOP voters, where he is currently 3-1 with the #nevertrump vote divided between multiple candidates.

Bartbuster, there's only one Minnesota, too. The only state Rubio has won so far, and he can't win it a second time. At this point, it doesn't even look like Rubio is going to win his home state of Florida.

# posted by Blogger Brett : 5:11 PM

I have no idea why you directed this at me. I think Trump wins easily. Rubio has no chance. Cruz only has a little better than no chance.

"When he is not winning caucuses and primaries, Cruz is generally coming in second."

You continue to have a tenuous grasp on the basic facts. Cruz came in third in South Carolina, Georgia, New Hampshire, Virginia and Nevada, fourth in Massachusetts and Vermont. That's seven of the what, 15 states so far? Generally second indeed!

Cruz has performed terribly in the Northeast and that's likely to persist (is there any doubt Trump's going to walk away with most of New York, Connecticut and New Jersey's delegates). I don't see him performing well on the West Coast states (where California's winner take all delegates are about twice that Cruz won in Texas). Cruz's strength was in the South, and so far Trump has matched him there. Cruz won his home state and the neighboring state that's virtually an extra district of that state, that's the bulk of his delegates. But there isn't another Texas coming, and Trump has run well where Cruz is supposed to be strong and will likely run even stronger where Cruz will likely be weak.

Cruz is in the strongest position to do this. This will become even more apparent when Rubio and Kasich lose their home states in a couple weeks.

If just Rubio left, Cruz might have a plurality. If both Rubio and Kasich leaves, then Cruz likely has a majority.# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 11:42 PM

Unfortunately for you, and Cruz, Rubio and Kasich won't be losing their home states to Cruz, they'll be losing them to Trump. Cruz will be lucky to get third. Cruz won't be getting a majority of anything.

It is becoming increasingly clear that both the libertarian conservative and establishment wings of the party are moving hard against Trump and the fix is in. Rubio and Cruz very effectively tag-teamed Trump during most of last night's debate and party leaders like Romney are coming out of the woodwork to publicly oppose Trump.

The debate exchange to which you referred was meant to make Trump (again) publicly pledge to support the nominee and not go third party if (when) he loses the nomination. None of the other candidates are planning on going third party or supporting Clinton, so their pledges to support the nominee are largely meaningless. They will not be campaigning for Trump.

so their pledges to support the nominee are largely meaningless. They will not be campaigning for Trump.

# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 11:09 AM

They may not campaign for him, but they won't campaign against him, and they'll definitely be voting for him. And so will you. Hell, you'll probably support him more on your blog and this blog than they will.

BTW, the GOP is starting to seriously look into launching a third party candidate.

BB: "BTW, the GOP is starting to seriously look into launching a third party candidate."

There is a big debate on the libertarian conservative wing of the party about what to do if Trump becomes the GOP nominee and a third party bid is in the conversation. As there is no candidate and no organization, this is all meaningless venting.

What is interesting is the complete lack of a similar debate among you Democrats. You are about to nominate a candidate who has earned a nine figure fortune selling influence to the world plutocracy including Trump and who has committed hundreds of felony and misdemeanor crimes in violation if classified materials laws. The Bern is not taking Clinton to task the way Cruz and Rubio are Trump and a supermajority of you Democrats who bother to vote are actually casting ballots for this corrupt felon.

It may seem that I have been MIA but I have been following the open threads as well as the intra-inter-Republican open house on how to overcome The Donald with the "small hands." "Family squabbles" can get nasty. (How well I remember the 1968 presidential campaign.) In any event, Paul Krugman says it well in his NYTimes column today "Clash of Republican Con Artists" and in particular this excerpt:

***

Mr. Ryan also declares that the “party of Lincoln” must “reject any group or cause that is built on bigotry.” Has he ever heard of Nixon’s “Southern strategy”; of Ronald Reagan’s invocations of welfare queens and “strapping young bucks” using food stamps; of Willie Horton?

Put it this way: There’s a reason whites in the Deep South vote something like 90 percent Republican, and it’s not their philosophical attachment to libertarian principles.

What precisely do you think was Nixon's "southern strategy?" Give examples of actual acts. In 1968, Nixon won some southern states because Wallace split the Democrat vote. In 1972, Nixon won everywhere because the Democrats ran a surrender monkey.

The idea that Reagan was a racist is a hoot. Reagan was outraged when he discovered that the White House was paying African American staff less and immediately eliminated the discrimination. Welfare queens come in all colors, predominantly white.

The GOP governors and legislatures were the ones who took down the Democrat, er Confederate battle flags across the South. Didn't hurt their reelection prospects in the least.

Once again, there is only on party which has supported government racial discrimination its entire existence and it's symbol is the ass.

The GOP started to win Southern states for the first time since Reconstruction, that kind of thing requires an explanation. Luckily, there's an obvious one. Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act, and 'whaddayaknow' it was Goldwater that started to win Southern states. Then Nixon invoked 'state's rights' and promised to reign in the Supreme Court on busing and 'whaddayaknow' he won Southern states. When the GOP went with the moderate to liberal Ford over Reagan and the Dems went with a conservative Southern Carter the GOP didn't carry the South, but when Reagan started his 1980 campaign invoking state's rights the realignment was complete.

Looks like both Trump and Rubio supporters are breaking for Cruz. Based on votes cast today, Cruz would have swept all four states. However, it appears that Trump will barely hold on in LA and KY based on early voting.

Trump reportedly called for Rubio to drop out so he could face off against Cruz one on one. Pure chutzpah. If that happened, Cruz would crush the Donald, who appears to have a ceiling of 1/3 of the vote.

Neither Rubio or Kasich has a viable path to the nomination. They need to get out now and give Trump the showdown he is asking for.

Another way to think about last night's elections might be this: Cruz has only won two primaries in the nominating process, one of which was his home state and the other neighboring Oklahoma. It's in the more 'elitist' caucuses with more arcane rules/processes and lower voter participation that he seems to do well, which is ironic indeed considering his and his follower's rhetoric.

Still, I'm enough of a realist to see that there's evidence of a trend turning away from Trump, whether it was caused by the GOP elites and establishment finally coalescing their message and resources to undercut him (again, how richly ironic to find Cruz and his supporters whiping their brow and going 'whew' because the Party establishment is now on their side) or Trump finally crossing a line the GOP electorate can't stomach with his KKK and/or penis comments. Unfortunately for Cruz or the rest of the GOP there is every incentive for Rubio and Kasich to stay in through the March 15 contests with Florida and Ohio. If they manage to split the vote considerably there and Trump does relatively well then I think Trump still has a serious chance (he'll have contests in NY, NJ, etc., in his future), if Trump tanks in those contests and Cruz wins then Trump's candidacy might be something more like a bubble which pops that day. Then the interesting thing to see will be how the eventual winner and party accommodate Trump and his delegates at the convention, whether they risk angering this already angry group or give Trump a prominence that hurts them in the general.

Just because a cause is just, doesn't mean everything done in that cause is just, or justified. The 14th amendment, on its face, did not reach private actors, and so the 1964 Civil rights act was an overreach. Goldwater was right about that, and that racists also opposed the act didn't make him wrong.

Abolishing segregation was one thing. Shipping children off to distant schools to produce desired racial distributions? The same sin the segregationists were guilty of.

The 14th amendment, on its face, did not reach private actors, and so the 1964 Civil rights act was an overreach.

The CRA was upheld as a regulation of interstate commerce. Regulation of public (sic) accommodations including to require serving of all comers has been in place for centuries and involves "state action" as also recognized a couple centuries ago. As to the reach of the 14A, Brett might think the 1870s Congress that so regulated and Justice John Marshall Harlan argued was constitutional a few years later was wrong, but it is a fairly reasonable position to hold.

Abolishing segregation was one thing. Shipping children off to distant schools to produce desired racial distributions? The same sin the segregationists were guilty of.

Busing was used to try to end racial segregation that was in various ways a result of state action. This was allegedly "the same" as state authorized segregation.

I was "shipped off" to a distant high school because it was seen by my parents as a better school than the one nearby. This was okay. But, trying to do so to fight racial segregation and bring together a range of people so "we the people" can learn how to live together -- the horror!

First, we are talking public schooling as to the second part, so parents have alternatives, even aside from moving. But, like with regulation of corporations, the state is providing benefits, so have more power here.

Second, busing was but a small part of the equation here and other options are often ideal. But, as noted, people already were taking transportation in various cases. Plus, like other flawed solutions, the critics often would look better if they did more to deal with the problems at issue.

The phrase "nor deny to any person the equal protection of the laws" actually does reach private actors. It means that non-action by the state -- say, failure to enforce laws against murder or to provide remedies for harms to black persons -- allows federal authorities to substitute for the recalitrant states.

The "state action" doctrine obscures this point, but the CRA mostly makes up for that. We might wish the Court had based its decisions on different grounds, but it has gotten mostly to the correct results (until recently, anyway).

Mr: W: Another way to think about last night's elections might be this: Cruz has only won two primaries in the nominating process, one of which was his home state and the other neighboring Oklahoma.

Becoming less true. The key takeaway from the Saturday LA and KY primaries is that Trump won the early vote and Cruz won the Saturday vote. There appears to be a substantial shift going on.

Still, I'm enough of a realist to see that there's evidence of a trend turning away from Trump...

The voting suggests that there is less of a shift away from Trump (he is still bringing in his third of the vote) and more of a consolidation of the non-Trump majority towards Cruz. Rubio fell to third or fourth in all the primaries and seems to be fading fast.

Unfortunately for Cruz or the rest of the GOP there is every incentive for Rubio and Kasich to stay in through the March 15 contests with Florida and Ohio.

Only pride.

Neither Rubio or Kasich has a viable path to a majority of delegates short of a fixed convention shifting delegates to a third or fourth place finisher, which would completely enrage both the anti-establishment and ideologically conservative wings of the party. Trump's only hope of winning the nomination is for Rubio and Kasich to continue to split the GOP majority through a number of winner take all states. If both got out now, Cruz would run most states outside of maybe NY and NJ.

Brett, I don't think everyone that opposed busing or the CRA was racist, but I'm pretty sure all racists (well, white ones at least) did so, and my point was about the GOP reversing previously held positions to appeal to that group.

I also think it's ridiculous to say that racially conscious efforts to desegregate things is the 'same thing' as racially conscious efforts to segregate. By your logic the man who uses force to rob someone and the policeman who threatens force to make the robber pay back the money are doing the 'same thing.'

I should add something to my point above, not only has Cruz won only two primaries, one being Texas his own state, but from what I understand Oklahoma is a closed primary. The same for Louisiana. The wider and less restricted the electorate the less well Cruz has performed. Michigan and Mississippi have open primaries Tuesday, they'll be good indicators of whether Cruz's fortune's really are changing.

"Only pride. "

These men are in a Presidential primary that has seen them losing to a reality tv start and has had highlights including televised debates arguing over candidates' penis sizes. Pride left a long time ago!

Seriously, having been in the game this long there's really little reason for Rubio and Kasich not to play for one more week to see how they perform in their respective heavyweight home states. Florida is winner take all iirc, were Rubio to pull off a win there he would get 99 delegates putting him on pace with Cruz.

I think that Lee Atwater describes the "Southern Strategy" better than anyone.

﻿You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”

The wider and less restricted the electorate the less well Cruz has performed.

No party should be running open primaries. When occasional, low information voters choose your candidate, they often choose progressive "con artists" like Obama and Trump, who put on a good show and lie comprehensively about their positions.

In any case, if (when) the race comes down to Trump and Cruz, it generally will not matter if it is a primary or caucus, open or closed. The non-Trump voters will outnumber the Trump voters.

Seriously, having been in the game this long there's really little reason for Rubio and Kasich not to play for one more week to see how they perform in their respective heavyweight home states.

With what voters?

Both were trailing in their home states in polling taken before their voters started shifting to Cruz.

No party should be running open primaries. When occasional, low information voters choose your candidate, they often choose progressive "con artists" like Obama and Trump, who put on a good show and lie comprehensively about their positions.

# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 8:50 PM

You stupid fuck. You supported Sarah Palin. You are in no position to criticize "low information voters".

The movement for primaries generally and open primaries specifically was a reaction to the notable machinations of party bosses, rigged contests and lack of transparency of early conventions and caucuses, and in response have a contest more open, transparent and less dominated by political elites. It's nice to see our usual 'anti-elitists' flip on this.

"progressive "con artists" like Obama and Trump, who put on a good show and lie comprehensively about their positions. "

This is doubly silly. First, Trump could very well have run as a Democrat if he wanted to or thought his message would be well received there (in fact filing requirements and such are usually more lenient for the Democrats). He knew very well where his message would be better received, and his current frontrunner status demonstrates he was correct. He's your party's frontrunner.

Second, it's silly to think Obama put one over on the Democrats and independents who voted for him in the party primaries in 08. I doubt many of them find his terms to be objectionable.

The point remains though. In contests that are less restricted and controlled by the party and activists, Cruz has struggled. Maybe that will change.

Amusingly, most Democrats, both casual and activists, today would tell you they are generally pleased with Obama. But most conservative activists, who are supposed to be (in their minds when they criticize other voters) the opposite of low information voters, have for years been re-writing history and denouncing their choice in 2000 as someone who was 'really a progressive.' And yet it seems it was them that bought what turned out to be a pig in a poke! So who's the 'low information voter' (or you might say 'mark')?

Mr. W: "Trump could very well have run as a Democrat if he wanted to or thought his message would be well received there (in fact filing requirements and such are usually more lenient for the Democrats).

The white working class voters Trump is targeting left the Democrats in 2009. Thus, Trump has to run as a RINO, comprehensively lie about his progressive positions, and his hiring of illegal and legal aliens to replace American workers to demagogue these voters about immigration.

"Second, it's silly to think Obama put one over on the Democrats and independents who voted for him in the party primaries in 08. I doubt many of them find his terms to be objectionable."

Are you kidding? Obama did for Democrat electoral success what Hoover did for the Republicans.

Obama lied about every single one of his proposals and later his governance during his presidential campaigns. The people who voted for him either believed the lies or did not care.

In 2008, millions of the white working class voters who are now supporting Trump cast ballots then for Obama. Obama earned the highest percentage of the white vote since LBJ. Dem strategist Stan Greenberg declared that the Reagan Democrats had come home.

However, that romance only lasted a few months into 2009, when Obama and the Democrats governance put the lie to their campaign promises. In a NYT poll that year, 17% of Tea Party supporters admitted voting for Obama.

The mass exodus of white voters to the GOP over the next three election cycles fired the Democrat Congress and roughly 1,000 state representatives. No other Democrat president has lost as many elected representatives of his own party.

Obama only survived in 2012 by demonizing Romney as a plutocrat, supressing the white working class vote and getting out his millennial and minority coalition. However, the Democrats could not recover their 2010 losses.

"I also think it's ridiculous to say that racially conscious efforts to desegregate things is the 'same thing' as racially conscious efforts to segregate."

In both cases, you're compelling people to go where you want them to go, rather than where they want to go. Bussing to desegregate, bussing to segregate, they're just the same in that regard. Violates Kant's dictum that you should treat people as ends, not means.

The 14th amendment guarantees us all equal protection of the law. When the law notes a person's race, and treats them one way if they're of one race, and a different way if they're of a different race, that guarantee is violated.

Your analogy to the police officer threating a thief with a gun to make them "give back" what was stolen is interesting. So, a child going to their neighborhood school, when they're needed at some distant school to make the statistics look right, is a thief?

So, the Democratic party once treated blacks worse because of their race. Now it wants to treat them better because of their race. The Republican position, all along, was to treat people without regard to their race.

"you're compelling people to go where you want them to go, rather than where they want to go"

That would make ANY sort of school districting a problem since some group don't want "to go" to certain schools over others. Again, of course there is some limits on freedom of action given means etc., but parents are not being totally "compelled" here. And, that is what many did -- they moved or went to private and parochial schools. Such was what my parents did and they were not alone.

"The 14th amendment guarantees us all equal protection of the law. When the law notes a person's race, and treats them one way if they're of one race, and a different way if they're of a different race, that guarantee is violated."

Even Scalia accepted limited race conscious polices as a remedial approach to address state authorized segregation. Doesn't make it correct, of course, but "noting a person's race" was never completely barred in every respect especially when the end is equal protection of the laws. When you have centuries of racial discrimination, which has not ended yet, sometimes you use race conscious policies to promote the end of equal protection of the laws.

"So, the Democratic party once treated blacks worse because of their race. Now it wants to treat them better because of their race."

They want to in various cases promote equal protection by recognizing race matters.

"The Republican position, all along, was to treat people without regard to their race."

The "Republican position" in the 1870s, e.g., was that school segregation was acceptable. The policy now is not that NO affirmative action policy is acceptable, which is why many Republicans supported it in recent SCOTUS battles. As a matter of effects, and when they let the cat out of the bag at times motivation, their policies also continue to treat people with regard to their race.

I find many conservatives have a great deal of trouble with analogies. I think it has to do with their 'black and white' and 'literalistic' thinking. But, if it helps, I'll make another stab at it.

You say racially conscious efforts to keep the segregated (because one thinks one race is bad and doesn't want it around the other) are the 'same thing' as racially conscious efforts to keep them integrated (because one thinks diversity is good because it equalizes opportunity and because people from different races can learn from each other). You do this by focusing solely on the first part, they are both instances of being 'racially conscious!' and neglect the second part, the motivation/goals.

My analogy was supposed to demonstrate the importance of the second part, both the thief and man who makes the thief give restitution could be said to be 'doing the same thing' if you look only at the first part of each (they're both using force to take something from someone), but if you don't ignore the second part of each you see that they're quite morally different.

Take another analogy: You shoot a man because you don't like how he looks at you and you shoot a man because he is coming at you with a knife. Using your logic these are 'the same thing' because they both are examples of you shooting someone. But of course that misses the exact thing that makes these two things quite different, doesn't it?

Mr. W: You say racially conscious efforts to keep the segregated (because one thinks one race is bad and doesn't want it around the other) are the 'same thing' as racially conscious efforts to keep them integrated (because one thinks diversity is good because it equalizes opportunity and because people from different races can learn from each other).

There is no evidence whatsoever that "diversity" in the melanin content of skin increases performance, equalizes opportunity or teaches anything.

Being bused into a gang ridden inner city middle school back in the mid-1970s only taught me prison rules of learning how to fight, hanging with big Italian kids with whom I shared an ethnic heritage for self protection, and to bring my own lunch rather than carry any money. The bus schedule prohibited any after school activities. Yet another wonderful example of failed progressive social engineering.

" I think it has to do with their 'black and white' and 'literalistic' thinking."

It has to do with being rational, and refusing to toss out the essential nature of things in favor of badly fitting metaphors intended to conceal fundamental truths.

You want to treat people differently based on the color of their skin. That's racial discrimination, no matter how much you dress it up, and no matter how positive you tell yourself your motivations are.

"There is no evidence whatsoever that "diversity" in the melanin content of skin increases performance, equalizes opportunity or teaches anything."

There's a great deal of evidence that cultural diversity does teach people a lot and increases performance in a variety of areas. This is why in big affirmative action cases results oriented organizations like successful businesses, the military, etc., tend to write briefs in support of it. Of course it's not about the biological skin color itself, but the fact that people of different skin colors tend generally have different life experiences which tend to form different viewpoints and ideas, and it's good to be around people who are different in these ways. People who think different at the very least teach us what and how people who think differently than us do, a useful thing if you need to reach them to sell them a product, lead them into battle, or, perhaps, convince them on a jury. People who grew up preparing and eating different foods can turn us on to them making our diets much richer, ditto for music, for poetry, etc., etc.

And as for opportunity, consider this: government discrimination systematically disadvantaged blacks relative to whites. Since where one buys/rents homes and lives is to a large degree dependent on economics, this meant that the day after government discrimination ends most blacks will still be able to afford to live in areas that most whites do not have to 'settle' for, and since schools are significantly funded locally this means the blacks will attend schools with less funds than the whites. Busing was an attempt to remedy that, to send many blacks to the white schools which were seen as better and offering more opportunity for good educations.

"Being bused into a gang ridden inner city middle school back in the mid-1970s only taught me prison rules"

Sounds like a traumatic experience, one that helps explain quite a bit about you. But, to the point, I'm not endorsing busing, just arguing that those who proposed and supported it were not in the same moral category as segregationists. I actually think busing was a pretty bad way of addressing some real concerns. A better way would be to make sure funding for schools occurred at the state level and that the funding was equally apportioned for each school.

If "equal protection" means "never using race" (the clause covers a range of classifications; cf. the 15A ... so this applies to some degrees to other matters too), the text to me was ill advised. State measures that strongly say "no racial preferences" help show just that. It's like the language in the 1A. Some states have stronger language against use of state funds to religious institutions, e.g.

OTOH, if you think the "essential" nature of words means something, it might be hard. We saw something like that with marriage.

BD: "There is no evidence whatsoever that "diversity" in the melanin content of skin increases performance, equalizes opportunity or teaches anything."

Mr. W: There's a great deal of evidence that cultural diversity does teach people a lot and increases performance in a variety of areas.

Two problems:

1) Race does not equal culture.

2) All cultures are not equally productive.

In the mix of more and less productive cultures, how does the mixture create increased productivity? If anything, net productivity is likely to collapse to the mean.

Of course it's not about the biological skin color itself, but the fact that people of different skin colors tend generally have different life experiences which tend to form different viewpoints and ideas, and it's good to be around people who are different in these ways.

Multi-Cultural nonsense.

Let's say William and Mary African American taught their daughter LaWanda self-discipline, delayed gratification and a love of education.

Let's say that Betty European-American is an alcoholic government dependent who was more interested in hooking up with a series of temporary boyfriends than raising her son Bart, who grew up on his own on the streets, blew off school and ended up as a part time criminal.

Precisely what can LaWanda gain from associating with Bart and sharing his street culture?

This is why in big affirmative action cases results oriented organizations like successful businesses, the military, etc., tend to write briefs in support of it.

The military is arguably the most successful mixed race organization in the nation because it values performance and is scrupulously color blind.

And as for opportunity, consider this: government discrimination systematically disadvantaged blacks relative to whites. Since where one buys/rents homes and lives is to a large degree dependent on economics, this meant that the day after government discrimination ends most blacks will still be able to afford to live in areas that most whites do not have to 'settle' for, and since schools are significantly funded locally this means the blacks will attend schools with less funds than the whites. Busing was an attempt to remedy that, to send many blacks to the white schools which were seen as better and offering more opportunity for good educations.

While disadvantaging everyone else the government sent or kept at some sh_t government school.

The better answer is to provide all students with equal resources and let them shop for the best school.

"A better way would be to make sure funding for schools occurred at the state level and that the funding was equally apportioned for each school."

Often actual policies aren't the best one, especially when the best policies are more expensive and requires long time effort. A different path where San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (funding) was decided the other way while Milliken v. Bradley (busing) is clearly conceivable. We can also assume these would deemed the best policies if not necessarily constitutionally compelled.

Busing to me was best seen as a temporary measure as well as used sparingly. Thus, e.g., long term residential segregation furthered by state policies could justify some type of limited busing toward advancing what ideally would have occurred naturally without segregation. City lines are not mere natural boundaries. But, it would not be used expansively. OTOH, some might voluntarily go on longer rides to go to schools with dance programs etc.

What to do with subpar schools is tricky, of course. I guess the "luck of the draw" will be that those members of groups likely to be historically segregated against will "neutrally" go to those schools. OTOH, like the draft pressuring the citizenry to better use military force, a lottery for all city residents might on some level be deemed the fairest approach.

No, but it tracks it rather well sometimes. You're big on polls, it's easy to show along a fairly wide swath of areas there are statistically significant, consistent differences between racial and ethnic groups.

"All cultures are not equally productive."

This isn't true in any 'cosmic' sense, but more importantly even in the sense it might be it really doesn't matter. In a long tail, globalized economy as long as different cultural groups have some consumer power it often pays to be able to do business with them, and an awareness of their culture, which is easier when people from that culture are represented in your business, pays off. Likewise, if your police, nursing, etc., organization is going to be paid to work in diverse cultural areas a familiarity with that culture facilitates success there.

"is scrupulously color blind."

That's laughable, the military is a strong practicioner of a variety of affirmative action programs, again see their brief in cases like Grutter.

"The better answer is to provide all students with equal resources and let them shop for the best school."

I'm open to a variety of ideas to give all kids a truly equal opportunity in schooling. Most voucher programs I've seen so far are woefully inadequate and amount to subsidizing more well off families from fleeing the public school systems while leaving others there, but in theory a school choice program isn't objectionable to me.

Brilliantly put. Saying 'we'll never use race for anything' in a world that, sadly, has been so stained with prejudice is a lot like saying 'we'll never use force for anything' in a world that, sadly, is stained with violence.

Melanin content of one's skin does not determine culture in any case. People with every skin pigmentation have varying cultures.

BD: "All cultures are not equally productive."

Mr. W: This isn't true in any 'cosmic' sense, but more importantly even in the sense it might be it really doesn't matter. In a long tail, globalized economy as long as different cultural groups have some consumer power it often pays to be able to do business with them, and an awareness of their culture, which is easier when people from that culture are represented in your business, pays off. Likewise, if your police, nursing, etc., organization is going to be paid to work in diverse cultural areas a familiarity with that culture facilitates success there.

This is true in every sense.

A free market can determine whether catering to customer racial preferences makes any sense. This does not justify government direction of society to create "racial diversity."

BD: "is scrupulously color blind."

Mr. W: That's laughable, the military is a strong practicioner of a variety of affirmative action programs, again see their brief in cases like Grutter.

Please give me a link to the brief.

Here is the Army "affirmative action" plan. The civilian command structure made the service create an equal opportunity division some years ago which collects information and sets very low "goals." This is all bureaucratic eyewash. The EO does not recruit or promote. http://www.apd.army.mil/jw2/xmldemo/p600_26/main.asp

"Melanin content of one's skin does not determine culture in any case. People with every skin pigmentation have varying cultures."

This is non-responsive to my point, so I'll just repeat it: "No, but it tracks it rather well sometimes. You're big on polls, it's easy to show along a fairly wide swath of areas there are statistically significant, consistent differences between racial and ethnic groups."

"this does not justify government direction of society to create "racial diversity."

It's the job of schools to ready students for success in today's work world, as I've detailed diversity is an important component of that.

"Here is the Army "affirmative action" plan."

LOL, I love how you found evidence to contradict your foolishly general statement about the military being 'scrupulously color blind' but try to wave it away with a weak ipse dixit about how they don't really do much of what they explicitly state.

Check out the section titled "Race Conscious Admissions Programs for Officer Education and Training" in this brief:

I took a minute to actually look over Bart's link. It's always amazing the extent at which he often upends his own positions. Take a look at the document. It commands military departments to scrupulously collect racial and ethnic statistics on their workforces, on promotions, on disciplinary actions, etc., etc., it sets actual numerical goals (remember goals? the things that conservative Republicans screamed were really quotas and the essences of unfair affirmative action?!?) in terms of percentages that positions and ranks should be by certain targets, mandates commanders come up with affirmative action plans to achieve those goals and regularly report an assessment of where they are now in relation to the goals. Scrupulously color blind indeed!

I took a minute to actually look over Bart's link. It's always amazing the extent at which he often upends his own positions. Take a look at the document. It commands military departments to scrupulously collect racial and ethnic statistics on their workforces, on promotions, on disciplinary actions, etc., etc., it sets actual numerical goals (remember goals? the things that conservative Republicans screamed were really quotas and the essences of unfair affirmative action?!?) in terms of percentages that positions and ranks should be by certain targets, mandates commanders come up with affirmative action plans to achieve those goals and regularly report an assessment of where they are now in relation to the goals. Scrupulously color blind indeed!# posted by Blogger Mista Whiskas : 12:00 PM

In Bartworld the one sentence that supports his views totally outweighs the 10 paragraphs that directly refute him.

You are free to offer a poll which correlates culture and race as evidence for your claim, then we can discuss how melanin can somehow cause parents to teach or children to adopt that culture.

I deal in reality, not bureaucratic kabuki dances. My position is that the military is scrupulously color blind, which would manifest itself in recruiting and promotions. The Army "affirmative action plan" is aspirational, by its own terms is restricted to qualified personnel, and has no power over recruiting (which is based primarily on education, testing and criminal background checks) or promotions (which are decided by commanders or promotion boards using commander ratings).

Several years ago, a class action suit was filed on behalf of officers who alleged they were not promoted because of the "affirmative action plan." None of the plaintiffs offered any actual evidence that less qualified minorities were promoted in their stead, but the Court of Claims held the goals alone were facially unconstitutional. http://www.adversity.net/military_court_97-165C.htm

That being said, I do not know what games the military may be playing to advance their civilian commanders' goal of integrating women into combat arms. That is a different kettle of fish.

"My position is that the military is scrupulously color blind, which would manifest itself in recruiting and promotions."

An organization which explicitly is tasked to collect data on the race of every recruit, promotion, separation, disciplined member, etc., and report on how the numbers for each meet set goals is 'scrupulously color blind?' That's laughable.

"promotions (which are decided by commanders or promotion boards using commander ratings)"

Sigh.

From the following: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpsrv/politics/special/affirm/stories/aaop031595.htm

"Guidelines for Army promotion boards are to select minority members equivalent to the percentage in the promotion pool. This means that the Army promotion process is based not on the number of minority members in the Army, but on the number of minority members in the pool of potential promotees to the next higher rank. Very important, there are no "timetables" to meet goals.

The process goes like this. The board takes into consideration past assignments, evaluation ratings, education and promotability to the next level after the one under consideration. The strongest candidates are eliminated quickly; so are the weakest ones. In reality, goals become operative only in the gray middle. As one well-informed white officer said: "Only fully qualified people are promoted, but not necessarily the best-qualified. But don't forget, we are talking micromillimeter differences in these cases."

There is no denying that pressure to meet the goals is strong. If the goal is not met, the board must defend its decisions."

"recruiting (which is based primarily on education, testing and criminal background checks)"